Well, this could be big... my mum will be gutted if Cliff's involved.
Loads of twitter people were going mad about it, then that Tory was falsely accused and everyone was forced to simmer down.
it's this one
What is this?
What. the. fuck.
don't forget that there wasn't the hysteria around paedophilia that there is now.
It'll be interesting to see which way the papers play this - will they run with the establishment abuse and cover up that ran throughout the late 70s and 80s, or will they go big on people on the left speaking at the same conferences as some members of the PIE?
One suspects it'll be the latter, unless the former can be tied back to the BBC somehow.
from when the age of consent was 21. Obviously in the campaign to get it lowered there were a few outliers...
And David Icke has been singing about this for years - Quite accurately. it's a shame in fact that he talks about lizards and stuff when he's very good at revealing elites and corruption. Ruins the credibility of what he's saying.
Anyway, basic gist is that Savile was a purveyor of children for the rich and powerful. This is why the most prolific paedophile we know of spent 10 years with Thatcher at her holiday home, who mixed openly with the royal family, who was never touched.
Tom Watson MP has an ongoing investigation into this. Read some of his speeches about it. In fact, read some of Icke's stuff about it - even before it all came out. He was saying this stuff years ago, naming individuals.
Anyway, this will never fully come out, but yes, it goes all the way to the top.
Bet Denis was proper pissed off.
that Icke throws the shape shifting lizard thing into the equation in order to avoid certain libel laws, in order to allow him to publicly call people paedophiles. Something about how it can only be libel/slander if it comes from a credible voice.
when faced with the choice of
(a) make a difference to the world and be listened to, but have to find watertight evidence, or
(b) have everyone think you're a nutter and aside from an ineffectual fanbase change nothing
he chose (b)????
I'm seriously considering starting a cult
(a) will be probably be rendered unachievable if he started the serious work of gathering watertight evidence (i.e. he would be 'constrained')
and he would 'suffer consequences'
(b) is the choice of the true sage
it is wise to disguise
some people say that all the reptile stuff is 'swiftian satire'
there's a reason Jonathan Swift is remembered for satire and not cannibalism.
Dando investigating all this when she got shot....her dodgy husband and all that.
Red Riding seems more like fact as we go on....
Not the Red Riding bit.
This caught my eye:
> Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens repeatedly raised the issue of a London based network ....... Dickens believed he had uncovered an establishment network with what he described as ‘big, big names’. He held a 30 minute meeting with the Home Secretary in 1984, handing over a dossier of his evidence. .......with Dickens describing himself as ‘encouraged’ following the meeting. The Home Secretary of the day however, was none other than Leon Brittan
Not being funny here Mr Dickens, but did you actually read the dossier before you had the meeting with one of the big big names that was in it...??
and did a little moonwalk.
When the establishment wants to, they can destroy a person completely (e.g. the civil service/M15 plots agains Harold Wilson, and this, when Profumo was forced to resign: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/dec/04/stephen-ward-innocent-geoffrey-robertson-review).
why Jonathan King was so vocally pissed off about getting banged up. He must've felt a proper twat* getting caught when Savile, 'Kitty' (allegedly), and a dozen cabinet ministers were having their pictures taken dressed as nurses with young boys on their laps and blithely going about their business without a care in the world.
(*insert own punchline)
So says this barrister.
Kinda plausible before he starts ranting on about Germans.
and Madeleine McCann.
No mention of `North Wales care homes` as per usual but that'll be a certain closing of a loop if that gets brought up...
and therefore slipped through the net before it closes...
then there are at least a couple of very high profile suspects that are due to be 'invited in for a chat' by The Old Bill
Regardless of who these people are/were I just can't wrap my head around how someone could do this to a child?!?
or at least that the desire to do it is very often beyond the control of those who commit the acts.
People need to try to understand what drives people to do it, in the same way that they try to do the same with serial killers or habitual criminals.
simply branding them as "evil" as most papers do, is not going to help any future victim.
it's more to do with power than it is to do with being actually attracted to children. Paedophilia is indeed and illness and there are people out there who struggle with it on a daily basis and not act on it. The level at which the act of abuse on children by people in power - as in the Saville case, Rolf Harris etc...has nothing to do with them being attracted to children, but because they feel that they are omnipitant and unfortunately they are because society seems to revere celebrities to almost god-like status.
And you're starting to answer your own question.
All crimes are not about power. There are various reasons for crime not just power.
And my statement was just that, a statement as opposed to an actual question.
You said that you can't wrap your head around it, and then you started to explain how it might happen and how it is allowed to continue.
"...National Association for Young People in Care (NAYPIC)."
Quite prescient of the group to choose an acronym like that, before the advent of the internet.
that all politians actually looked like diddlyphiles in the 70's